divine_get_lal_kitab_planet_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds that it returns an interpretation including condition and effects, which is useful contextual information but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations already convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core action ('Get Lal Kitab analysis of one planet') is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the return value. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward read-only analysis tool with full parameter descriptions and an output schema, this description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and output. The only notable gap is the absence of usage alternatives, but that belongs to the usage-guidelines dimension.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for analysis_planet and the full birth details in params. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Lal Kitab analysis of one planet'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like divine_get_lal_kitab_planetary_positions (plural) through the explicit 'one planet', and from generic divine_get_planet_analysis through the 'Lal Kitab' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or alternative, so it lacks full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that divine_get_planet_analysis should be used for non-Lal Kitab analysis, or that this tool is for single-planet interpretation only. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.